网站性能：rel = canonical vs redirect 301 [英] Site Performance: rel=canonical vs redirect 301

问题描述

在 Matt Cutts博客上的此页面中，他说 rel = canonical 应该是次要选择，如果您不能使用301重定向。使用301重定向而不是 rel = canonical 是否存在任何性能问题？

From this page on the blog of Matt Cutts, he says that rel=canonical should be a secondary choice if you can't use a 301 redirect. Is there any performance issue with using a 301 redirect instead of a rel=canonical?

推荐答案

以我的经验，性能差异可以忽略不计。 301重定向的实现涉及更多步骤，因此 rel = canonical 的性能可能会稍好一些。额外的步骤通常非常快速地执行，因此不应增加任何明显的延迟或服务器资源负担。

In my experience, the performance difference is negligible. There are more steps involved in the implementation of 301 redirects, so rel=canonical might perform slightly better. The extra steps are typically executed very quickly and should not add any noticeable delay or strain on server resources.

1. 用户请求/ non-canonical。 html


2. 服务器查找规范的URL：/canonical.html


3. 服务器构建一个包含规范标记的页面，并将其发送给用户

301重定向

301 Redirect

1. 用户提出以下要求/non-canonical.html


2. 服务器查找规范URL：/canonical.html


3. 服务器发出301重定向到规范URL。


4. 用户的浏览器自动向/canonical.html发出第二个请求。
   
5. 服务器发现此请求是针对标准URL。


6. 服务器将建立一个页面并将其发送给用户。

1. User makes a request for /non-canonical.html
2. Server looks up canonical URL: /canonical.html
3. Server issues a 301 redirect to the canonical URL.
4. User's browser automatically makes a second request for /canonical.html
5. Server discovers that this request is for a canonical URL.
6. Server builds a page and sends it to the user.

这篇关于网站性能：rel = canonical vs redirect 301的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！